BETHLEHEM-- The father of the 14-year-old prankster who engaged in a game of "ding dong ditch" over the weekend professed contrition for his son's actions.

And in cyberspace, the case has created a blogosphere buzz.

"I'm very unhappy with my son's behavior Saturday night," Rob Madeo said Wednesday. "I don't condone his actions under any circumstances and we'll deal with this in the harshest possible way."

Madeo responded to the case in which Daniel P. Van Plew tackled Madeo's son, who was among four teenagers ringing his doorbell late at night. Van Plew now faces charges of endangering the welfare of a child and harassment.

Madeo, of Glenmont, an irascible critic and popular blogger on the Times Union website who previously blogged anonymously as the media insider Albany Eye, declined to specify the punishment he and his wife had given their son.

Madeo said Bethlehem police asked if he wanted to press charges against Van Plew, 37, of Egmont Court, after the incident and he assented.

The teens had been at a sleepover at a friend's house near Van Plew's home in the Haswell Farms development Saturday night when they hatched the prank police described as "ding dong ditch."

Van Plew contended that he feared for the safety of his two children, ages 3 and 6, asleep upstairs at the time of the prank and he gave chase after four teenagers pounded on his back door and rang his front doorbell at about 10:30 p.m. Saturday and then bolted when he yelled at them.

The police report said the Madeo boy suffered a cut on his elbow, bruise over his eye and a bloody lip after being tackled by Van Plew, but the boy refused medical attention.

"Given the nature of my son's injuries and what I understood of the situation, it seemed appropriate to agree to having charges pressed," Madeo said.

Madeo's son had initially been charged with trespass by police, a violation, but that charge is not admissible in Family Court, said Lt. Robert Berben of the Bethlehem Police. Madeo's son's name is being withheld because of his age.

There is a discrepancy between the accounts of the incident by Madeo's son and Van Plew. The police report states that Van Plew tackled the boy in his yard near the street, but Madeo's son told police he was tackled some distance off Van Plew's property. The law affords homeowners more rights about using self-defense against an intruder inside their home or on their property compared with someone not on their property.

Berben said the case against Van Plew, a biopharmaceutical company executive, will hinge on whether the homeowner used excessive force. He said the police were sending the case to the Albany County district attorney's office. Police issued Van Plew appearance tickets and he must answer the misdemeanor and violation charges in Bethlehem Town Court on Aug. 3.

Berben said that teen pranks are not uncommon in Delmar, but he cautioned against vigilantism. "You can't take the law into your own hands, especially when it comes to juveniles," he said.

There were conflicting versions of how roughly Van Plew treated the boy after he tackled him. The boy told police that Van Plew pinned his arm behind his back and applied pressure, according to the boy's father, and threatened to kill the boy if he tried to escape from inside the house, where Van Plew confined him until police arrived.

The police report listed Madeo's son at 5-foot-7 and 120 pounds and Van Plew at 5-foot-11 and 170 pounds.

Van Plew denied he threatened the boy. Rather, he said through his attorney that Madeo's son claimed he had a knife in his pocket and threatened to kill the homeowner. It turned out to be a cellphone in his pocket. Van Plew also said that Madeo's son kept up a vile barrage of profanities, including crude sexual remarks about Van Plew's wife.

The boy's father stood by his son's version. "That's what he claims," Madeo said. "He was pretty shaken up and he felt his personal safety was threatened. It was a very emotional moment for both parties."

Van Plew described it as "an awkward situation" and "painful" for his family.

The police report appears to corroborate the description of the incident that Van Plew offered through his attorney, Peter Gerstenzang. Van Plew was in his underwear and preparing to go to bed when he came downstairs to secure some papers he had left out. He saw a shadowy figure standing close to his house and others moving out front.

Van Plew has a security system at his home, including surveillance cameras. The homeowner and his attorney declined to comment on whether the incident was captured on a surveillance tape.

Berben said police reacted appropriately to the situation.

Van Plew said through his attorney that he reacted as he did because he was initially frightened that the quartet in his yard -- he did not know at first that they were teenagers -- may have been trying to harm his children or vandalize his home.

"It's a nightmare for him," Gerstenzang said of Van Plew. "Under the circumstances, I think his reaction was pretty moderate."

Such is the overheated world of the blogosphere, where dozens of agitated anonymous commentators have weighed in on the case, that Gerstenzang held a news conference Wednesday to appease the media. "This is a criminal charge and typically we don't do it in the media," he said. He did not offer additional details and Van Plew and his wife did not talk to reporters.

Van Plew described himself and his wife as "under-the-radar people who lead a private life" and never anticipated this notoriety. "We weren't expecting this reaction," he said at his attorney's office a few hours after he was confronted in his driveway by television reporters. Madeo, who appears to be rarely at a loss for words, seemed tongue-tied and circumspect over what he called "a very stressful time."

When asked what he might have done if he were in Van Plew's place, he recounted a similar incident with teen pranksters at his suburban Glenmont home.

"I certainly stepped outside to look around and yelled down the street. But I didn't give chase," Madeo said. "I have mixed feelings about the situation. It's a very sensitive issue I'd rather not be discussing."

He said he has no immediate plans to blog about the incident.

Reach Paul Grondahl at 454-5623 or by e-mail at pgrondahl@timesunion.com